26 Sep 2025 | Americas, Asia and Pacific, China, Europe and Central Asia, European Union, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Palestine, United Kingdom, United States
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at the designation of Antifa as domestic terrorists and the indictment of James Comey.
Australian horror movie edited to make a gay couple straight
An Australian company behind the new horror film Together, pulled it from cinemas in China this week. This followed the discovery of unauthorised changes made by the Chinese distributor which had edited a scene from a gay wedding to make the couple appear heterosexual.
Together, starring James Franco and Alison Brie, is distributed by Neon who released a statement on the edits: “Neon does not approve of Hishow’s unauthorised edit of the film and have demanded they cease distributing this altered version.”
Guidelines released by China’s top media regulator in 2016 banned depictions of homosexuality from TV in the country. In the past, the ban would have meant sections of an offending movie or documentary would have been edited out as happened with the Freddie Mercury biopic Bohemian Rhapsody. However AI technology has allowed scenes to be altered instead.
In the case of Together an AI-generated woman replaced the man depicted in the original and so a gay wedding became a straight one.
Trump signs order designating Antifa a domestic terrorist organisation
US President Donald Trump signed an order on Monday designating Antifa a domestic terrorist organisation following the death of podcaster Charlie Kirk.
An article released by the White House refers to an alleged “trend of Radical Left violence that has permeated the nation in recent years” and provides a list of supposed “Antifa” attacks. This included the assertion that Kirk was “assassinated by a Radical Left terrorist” which many people dispute, as there is little proof the shooter had any political affiliation or that there was a greater conspiracy.
Antifa gets its name from compacting the term “anti-facist” and has its roots in 1920s and 1930s Europe, where groups formed to push back against growing fascist movements.
Concerns have been raised regarding the legality of such an order, or even how such an order should be carried out, with Antifa not really being an organisation at all in the USA, just a loosely connected network of protest groups. Seth G. Jones from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) wrote in 2020 after Trump had suggested a similar move: “While President Trump raised the possibility of designating Antifa as a terrorist organization, such a move would be problematic. It would trigger serious First Amendment challenges and raise numerous questions about what criteria should be used to designate far-right, far-left, and other extremist groups in the United States. In addition, Antifa is not a “group” per se, but rather a decentralised network of individuals. Consequently, it is unlikely that designating Antifa as a terrorist organisation would even have much of an impact.”
BBC releases short film calling for Gaza access
A short film premiered on Wednesday and launched by the BBC, AFP, AP and Reuters called for international journalists to be allowed into Gaza.
Independent reporters have been refused entry to the strip since the 7 October attacks on Israel, leading to repeated calls for access from foreign press and governments.
In a statement Deborah Turness, CEO of BBC News, said: “As journalists, we record the first draft of history. But in this conflict, reporting is falling solely to a small number of Palestinian journalists, who are paying a terrible cost.
“It is almost two years since October 7th when the world witnessed Hamas’ atrocities. Since then, a war has been raging in Gaza but international journalists are not allowed in. We must now be let into Gaza. To work alongside local journalists, so we can all bring the facts to the world.”
You can watch the short film here.
Chinese Journalist Zhang Zhan jailed for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”
Chinese lawyer and journalist Zhang Zhan has been sentenced to four years imprisonment for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”.
Zhan was jailed in 2020 for reporting on the Covid-19 outbreak in Wuhan through her YouTube and Twitter (now X) accounts and is just one of many writers and journalists currently imprisoned in China.
Released in May 2024 she was arrested again by police three months later whilst travelling to report on the arrest of an activist in the province of Gansu.
Concerns are mounting over Zhan’s health after she has reportedly gone on repeated hunger strikes to protest her arrest.
Ex-FBI director James Comey indicted on two charges
Ex-director of the FBI James Comey has been indicted on two charges by a Virginia court this week.
Comey has been charged with one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice according to the indictment.
Comey was appointed FBI director in 2013 by then President Barack Obama and served in this role until his firing in 2017 by President Donald Trump, during an investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 presidential election.
In 2020 Comey faced a congressional hearing where he defended the investigation, stating: “In the main, it was done by the book, it was appropriate and it was essential that it be done, there were parts of it that were concerning.”
It is at this hearing that Comey is accused of knowingly lying to congress whilst being questioned about the FBI’s handling of both the Russia investigation and an investigation into a private email server used by Hilary Clinton.
Comey’s trial is notably being held in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, known as the espionage court, and famously host to cases such as that of Edward Snowden, and CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou.
15 Jan 2021 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116027″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Irony – a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different one
Censored – suppressed, altered or deleted as objectionable
Words are important and while language is ever evolving some words have had the same meaning for decades, even centuries, and there are simply no excuses for misrepresenting them to try and fit your political worldview. Words have status, they have legal bearing and they are also a thing of beauty enabling us to communicate with each other.
This week we saw the ultimate unintentionally ironic political statement during the debate in the House of Representatives concerning Donald Trump’s second impeachment. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, a freshman Republican congresswoman from Georgia, stood up to defend the rhetoric of the president, speaking from the US Capitol, from the chamber of Congress, the home of US democracy, on live television and while being live streamed around the world, with a face mask which read “CENSORED”.
Perhaps it was a veiled reference to Trump’s removal from Twitter? But at that very moment, the congresswoman herself, with her words and her world view being heard by literally millions of people and recorded for posterity in both the media and the Congressional Record, was not being censored. Her voice wasn’t being limited, she wasn’t being forced to restrict her language or caveat her political position. She is fortunate to live in a country where free speech is still both protected and valued. And to suggest otherwise undermines the global fight for the right to free speech in repressive regimes.
Senator Josh Hawley has had his book contract cancelled by Simon & Schuster. They said “[a]fter witnessing the disturbing, deadly insurrection that took place on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. We did not come to this decision lightly. As a publisher it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints; at the same time we take seriously our larger public responsibility as citizens, and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom.”
Hawley is claiming that he is being cancelled, that his constitutional right to free speech is being attacked and that he is suing. We know that because Hawley was featured in nearly every news outlet which covers the USA, both foreign and domestic. Hawley remains a senator, he has the right to speak to his nation in every sitting outlining his priorities and world view. His words were published this week in an op-ed in his local media. He hasn’t been silenced or cancelled, his lucrative book deal has. And even if that sets a bad precedent – a debate we will explore further at Index over the coming months – it is not the same thing.
Our right to free speech is precious. It is something that we need to cherish. Not abuse. And we need to be honest about when it is and is not being threatened. It is being threatened in Belarus, where our own correspondent Andrei Aliaksandrau has just been arrested by the regime. It is under threat in Egypt where according to the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights 60,000 political prisoners are incarcerated. It is nonexistent in Xinjiang province, China, where millions of Uighurs have been sent to re-education camps. It is not being threatened in the USA – it may be being challenged but these words mean different things.
I believe passionately about our right to free speech. I think everybody has the right to speak, to argue their position, to tell their stories. But there is a difference from having the right to speak and the right to be heard. Simply put you don’t have the latter, it is not a universal right, which can be unjust and for some incredibly damaging but it’s the reality we live in.
This brings me to the other controversy of the week, which warrants a great deal of debate and conversation. Something Index is going to launch in the coming weeks – the suspension of Trump from his social media accounts. Most online platforms are corporate entities, who balance responsibilities to defend free speech and to protect their users. They have a duty of care to their customers as well as to their corporate reputations. They also facilitate a great deal of our national and personal conversations. And they have made the remarkable decision to remove the President of the United States from their sites. They had the right to do this, but the question is should they have removed him and more importantly who decided he shouldn’t be there?
It was not a decision that was taken lightly. “I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?” wrote CEO of Twitter Jack Dorsey.
In his thoughtful thread on the action he wrote: “Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.”
As Dorsey himself acknowledges we need to explore what role these companies really play in our society. Are they merely platforms enabling us to engage within a framework they determine? Are they publishers responsible for every word on their sites? Do they govern the public space or merely facilitate it? And do we know what they are doing? Their actions can determine who speaks and who is heard. We need a really robust conversation about where the red lines should be on online content and what is or isn’t acceptable. These questions have been circulating for a while but have never felt more crucial to be addressed than this week. These are the questions that will define our online presence in the years ahead, so we need answers now.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
30 Oct 2020 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Donald Trump taking questions at a press conference on Covid-19. Credit: WikiCommons
By this time next week, we will hopefully (subject to the courts, likely delays and the impact of Covid) know who the future leader of the USA will be. In an election that feels like it has been raging from the moment that Donald J Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States, it will be a relief when it is finally over.
But we need to look beyond the campaign hype and explore the longer term impact of the relationship between the White House and the media, which has become a little fraught to say the least.
According to the US Press Freedom Tracker, Trump has undermined and attacked the media a total of 2434 times since he was confirmed as the Republican candidate in 2016. Indeed within just days of taking office, he took the opportunity to label journalists “the enemy of the American People” in words that many saw as echoing those of Stalin and the Nazis, as the great granddaughter of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev wrote in Index on Censorship magazine at the time.
For a country built on the premise of a free press and with free speech enshrined in law it’s an appalling indictment of the current state of acceptable political discourse in the USA.
The First Amendment is one of the most revered and easily understood of all the additions to the US Constitution. At its heart is the idea that each and every US citizen has an inalienable right to their own freedom of speech and assembly. But it also confers the absolute protection for the press to report freely and as they see fit. It reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Of course when the Founding Fathers drafted this no one could have envisaged the role of social media and how, a president with a gripe, could use it to undermine the press and deliberately seek to use his power to target journalists who report on his activities in a way he does not agree with.
Ahead of the final presidential debate, Trump took to Twitter to denounce the moderator and renowned journalist Kristen Welker as “terrible & unfair, just like most of the Fake News reporters”.
Trump said to Jeff Mason, the highly respected Reuters journalist, on a visit to Arizona, “Let me tell you something: Joe Biden is a criminal, and he’s been a criminal for a long time. … And you’re a criminal, and the media, for not reporting it.”
Trump has declared that on 3 November “We’re not just running against Joe Biden. We’re running against the left-wing media…”
Trump is, of course, entitled to use his freedom of speech to criticise the press. But he has taken this a step beyond normal criticism of the media. From early in to his administration news organisations whose editorial line might not be favourable towards Trump have been barred from press briefings. And these interferences in normal due process have only accelerated, especially during the current pandemic, as our Covid media tracker highlights.
A malevolence has seeped into presidential communications that seeks to undermine and delegitimise reporters who produce editorial content that does not fit the White House narrative. And as we head to the election, it seems that the Trump administration increasingly wants to take aim at the First Amendment and double down on their attacks on the free press.
This month, in an unprecedented move, the head of the US Agency for Global Media (a Trump appointment) has scrapped the ‘firewall’ that protected the editorial freedoms of Voice of America and other broadcasting agencies that receive public funding. The repeal memo claimed that the firewall was in conflict with the agency’s purpose to promote the interests of American overseas. Michael Pack, the CEO of the IS Agency, claimed that the agency “do not function as a traditional news or media agency and were never intended to do so.” He added: “For example, the Networks are to articulate the American perspective while countering international views that undermine American values and freedom, or that might aid our enemies’ messaging.”
The Agency for Global Media runs Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia. Both are intended to provide independent news to audiences in countries where media freedoms are curtailed and yet now they may be used to produce nothing more than partisan propaganda for whoever wins the White House next week.
And as Index reported earlier this week, plans to change the I visa terms for foreign journalists operating in the USA have been suggested. If passed, these plans would represent a serious setback to media freedom.
None of this is even vaguely in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment. It does little to support and promote the USA’s place in the world. Instead it undermines global free speech and as such shouldn’t be ignored by the wider global family.
On Tuesday we will hopefully find out what the USA’s long term priorities are. Be assured that we will be shining a light on whoever wins if they fail to protect our global freedom of speech and if they fail to promote and protect the media.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You might also like to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
28 Sep 2020 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The White House, WIkiCommons
After the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Donald Trump was quick to fill the hole left by her on the Supreme Court.
As he nominated Amy Coney Barrett for the role over the weekend, Trump called Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “a true American legend…a legal giant, and a pioneer for women”.
But what of Coney Barrett?
Announcing his choice for the vacant role, the president said Coney Barrett possessed “a towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the constitution”.
As with any nominee to the Supreme Court, there has inevitably been a focus on Barrett’s stance on a multitude of issues, including particular scrutiny on key issues such as abortion and LGBT rights. However, Coney Barrett’s stance on matters of free speech has been difficult to determine.
As the Supreme Court acts as the USA’s highest court, its rulings on all matters, not just free speech, are vital. The highest court in the land has the final say and therefore, for Index, exactly where each judge stands on their own personal interpretation of the First Amendment is of paramount importance to judging the extent of the limitations to free speech.
The Institute for Free Speech – an organisation set up to “promote and defend the First Amendment” – recorded the actions of the initial candidates, for the position including the successful nominee Coney Barrett, in an attempt to gauge their overall position on free speech law. Coney Barrett does not have extensive records on dealing with cases concerning the First Amendment, but research done by IFS concludes that there are positive signs among what little cases there are.
Coney Barrett, currently judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has been involved in a number of free speech cases since 2018. IFS reports that “Barrett may be willing to expand free speech protections in limited but nevertheless important contexts”.
But the 48-year-old’s record on dealing with whistle-blower cases has been mixed. In August this year, Coney Barrett’s court favoured the First Amendment and the right of a public employee to raise alarm. However, in the case of Kelvin Lett, a Chicago investigator who refused to change a police report under direction from his supervisor, Coney Barrett ruled: “Lett may have had a good reason to refuse to amend the report [but this] does not grant him a First Amendment cause of action.”
Coney Barrett has also faced scrutiny over her faith, with some questioning if her Catholic faith hinders her decisions. Pro-choice activists have consequently raised concerns over her views on abortion rights and whether she will curtail freedoms in that respect. That said, in an interview earlier this year, the judge stated: “I think one of the most important responsibilities of a judge is to put their personal preferences and beliefs aside. Our responsibility is to adhere to the rule of law.”
Conservative issues and tensions in the country have heightened since the Black Lives Matter protests erupted in May, after the killing of George Floyd. According to Fox News’ Harmeet Dhillon, there is clear friction “between government speech and the creation of public forums for expression” regarding the use of murals by BLM protestors.
Coney Barrett, a conservative herself, could well be ruling on this issue should it face the Supreme Court. The Washington Post has been clear to the point out that the death of Bader Ginsburg was a clear opportunity for conservatives to “cement their dominance” with a 6-3 majority on the court.
While Coney Barrett herself insists that personal beliefs should be kept aside, the majority may prompt conservatives to bring back more contentious issues to the court. The Post said: “The court’s conservative wing has outvoted liberals to carve out religious exemptions from federal laws; to strike down campaign-finance regulations as violations of the First Amendment; and to allow gerrymanders under the view there was no way to determine when a partisan legislature had gone too far.”
The jury, it seems, is still out, which is worrying for us at Index. The question of her commitment to the First Amendment and what it protects for freedoms more generally is of critical importance. Of course it comes at a crucial time, after years of a Trump administration in which freedoms, in particular of the media, have been chipped away.[/vc_column_text][three_column_post title=”You might also like to read” category_id=”5641″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
